My understanding of “No True Scotsman” is: - You have a set - You are making a claim that covering ALL elements of that set - But you excluding some elements,

My understanding of “No True Scotsman” is: - You have a set - You are making a claim that covering ALL elements of that set - But you excluding some elements, and claiming that they are actually not really element of that set Example: For example, it is common to argue that "all members of [my religion] are fundamentally good", and then to abandon all bad individuals as "not true [my-religion]-people" [0] I am more like in the “defund police” case, if you are “anti-defund police” camp, you can come up with this fallacy. You can say like “All police men are good”, “if bad it is not true police men at all” But I could’t wrap my mind on the opposite side. [0] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman